|
(Continued from page 5)
A Survey of Students
In order to investigate the nonadditive, nonlinear, and multidimensional nature of student evaluation policies, I conducted a survey similar to one that David Perkins did several years ago. I asked 142 lower division students to evaluate 89 hypothetical classes, based on factorial variations of three variables: the instructor's personality and individual characteristics, standards for grading in the course, and the amount of content the instructor presents (Birnbaum, 1998). The 142 students represented 29 different majors from Accountancy, Art, and Biochemistry to Sociology, T.V. Broadcasting, and Theater Arts; there were also 26 with undeclared majors. I anticipated that this heterogeneous mix of students would hold a variety of different views of what would be the optimal class.
However, to my surprise, the students were remarkably homogeneous in their evaluations of courses:
94.4% (134* of 142) gave higher evaluations to an "attractive, well-dressed, 36 year old female with a nice personality" than to a "62 year old male with a slight tremor (due to a previous stroke) who doesn't smile in class."
92.3% (131*) gave higher ratings to a class with "light" content (less than 100 pages to read in a semester, and nothing else to do outside of class) than to a course with "heavy" content (800 pages to read and homework assignments); only 9 gave highest ratings to courses with the most content. Only 16.9% (24) rated a "medium" level of content as better than the "light" level, although the "medium" course was described as having "300 pages of medium level reading" to do in the semester, and the course might require 'some study' to master the material." Surprisingly, students were not hesitant to say that they prefer "lite" education.
97.9% (139* of 142) gave higher ratings to a course with "very easy" standards than to a course with "very hard" standards. Only 14 (9.8%) students gave their highest ratings to a course with "medium-easy" or "medium-hard" standards.
The "very easy" standards course was described as follows: "This instructor gives most students As and Bs, even those who are struggling with the material or who have not been diligent in attendance and study. Only the most clueless student will get a C in this class. If a person has half a brain and attends some of the time, they will pass with an A or a B." "Medium-easy" was described as a course in which most students get As and Bs, there are a few Cs, and an occasional D or F. "Medium-hard" was a class with 30% As and Bs, 50% Cs, and 20% Ds and Fs. The "very hard" level was described as a couse in which 7% of the students get As, 13% Bs, 40% Cs, 25% Ds, and 15% Fail.
Apparently, students are not hesitant to say they will give higher evaluations to courses with lower standards and less content. Students gave the highest ratings to the course in which the teacher is attractive and has a good personality, where the standards for grading are lowest, and where the content is least. Apparently, the majority of faculty are correct in describing how to improve their student evaluations. Yet this change also lowers student performance, according to the faculty. Thus, according to the faculty, we have created a system in which changes destructive to education are encouraged.
Conclusion: Student Evaluations May Harm Education
The evidence reviewed here indicates that many faculty believe that the incentive system (using student evaluations for promotion and tenure decisions) puts them in a conflict of interest between making changes that would improve student learning and making changes that would improve student evaluations. When teachers are put in a conflict between the good of the people and self-interest, they should not be blamed by those who created the conflict if they protect their self-interests.
It has been pointed out to me that an assumption implicit in collecting student evaluations is that the average student is more likely right than the professor. This assumption may not be warranted, and the very idea that a professor should redesign a course on the basis of anonymous student comments may be demoralizing to those who reject the notion that students who have not yet finished a class should decide its proper content or how it should be taught. Should a professor follow suggestions of students, made anonymously during the stressful week before the final exam? Should we revise courses based on opinions of students who have not completed the first course in a subject? Can students know what the content of a course should have been before they have completed the next course in the sequence? Wouldn't students' evaluations be more accurate after they have completed their degrees and worked in society for a few years?
I have run into some of our former students who now work as waitresses or at service counters at copy shops. These people spontaneously tell me that they now realize that they did not understand what was important when they were in school. They now have different attitudes and Continued
|
|
